Jim has been "nasty" to Natasha since the beauty task (Natasha said to Felicity: "I sold more than Jim, why are you taking me to the boardroom?").

Dog Food task - Natasha & Jim clashed after the firing of Ellie & Vincent.

Biscuit task - Jim & Helen ignored Natasha completely.

I am not Natasha's fan, but I think that Jim was nasty to her in the boardroom.

By the way, Natasha did not say "yeah" on you're fired.

True. I reckon she'd worn the word out by the time she got there.

But I bet the rest of the country (and beyond) DID! Yeah?

Speaking of Natasha on "yeah", she acknowledged it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...0wBnFBYM#t=78s

http://youtu.be/TEG0sOtQA3w

Perhaps Jim has been nasty to her because she, along with Susan, saw through his 'charm'.

........

You would think this 'charm' was life threatening or something, it is his makeup as it is with most irish people and their wonderful sense of humour. I just do not see him as being nasty at all, I think Susan is the sly one

I think theres truth here.
Neither Susan or Natasha seem to like Jim and his 'charm' and controlling doesnt work on them.
Zoe, Melody and Helen all flash their teeth and bat their eyes at him while giggling at him calling them sweetheart of angel or whatever.
Susan has his measure, she knows that he is threatened by 'the mouse' and Natasha is one who knows where he is from and knows the sort of bloke he is.

Do you think so? While I'm Irish and that is stereotyping for a start.
He has no sense of humour unless he is sneering at someone else.
He isnt charming, he's a spinless liar who tries to cover it by being smarmy.

In my opinion, Natasha was not the weakest in that task, Jim was. But obviously Natasha was going to be fired because she seems the weakest, if that makes any sense.

I agree. Natasha's biggest flaw was her exhaustion,. A classic song of death for any candidate. Every candidate who was exhausted or had given up was sacked. Jim, on the other hand, made a mess of his PM role. He had no control whatsoever. He was happier hiding in the kitchen instead of keeping an eye on everything to make sure it was running smoothly. He can talk the talk, but didn't walk the walk too well.

He is pretty useless really but I still think he's got more going for him than Natasha. It seems to me this exhaustion thing was thrown to her like a life line on YF, I believe, which is ironic as some seem to think she was treated badly on there. Anyway she clung on tight to it and so do her supporters.

I do not recall such displays happening. Zoe smiled at him when he smiled at her at the start of the magazine task... is that one of your examples? Because if so, it's a bit of a stretch. Returning a smile or welcoming someone back to the house is not akin to 'flashing teeth and batting eyelashes'...


The reason he excelled at the selling task was his sense of humour. Whether you like it or not, we actually witness groups of people becoming embroiled in lighthearted exchanges with him. If he were 'sneering at them', as you put it, they would not purchase his wares.

Personally, I think Jim sucked big time at this task. But he saw Natasha had effectively chucked the towel in and was also out of her depth and latched onto that as a survival mechanism. I believe Sugar would've fired Jim any other week, but because he wanted rid of Natasha he went along with the diversion. Also, interviews are just around the corner and I think Sugar figures Jim will make good viewing.

I agree he can be very funny as we saw when he was in his element in Shepherd's Bush market selling the umbrellas. Susan is indeed sly. She is very nice to everyone outside the boardroom but with the protection afforded by the boardroom she turns into a little devil who's not afraid to put the knife into anyone.

^^ This.

I don't watch You're Fired. I thought she was losing steam last three tasks. Natasha in the free mag task and Natasha in the fast food task are a world apart. Jim has better stamina than she has. Let's be honest, there isn't much difference between them two when comes to being the PM.

Plenty of instances of eye flirting and smiling at each other between Jim and Zoe, Melody, Helen. If you haven't noticed them maybe i am more observant or perhaps the fact that you have previously described yourself as one of his minions affects your interpretation
Susan and Natasha have both seperately remarked that they dont fall for his 'charm', or words to that effect and that accords with what I have observed myself.
Dont get me wrong, I dont think Zoe fancies Jim, or that any of the others do either, except Helen maybe. But it may just be that she is female Jim.

That's not sense of humour, it's holding court and going through ones patter. He has almost no sense of humour other than very snidey one, which I think stems from insecurities and feelings of worthlessness. And those feelings are justified IMO.

I have a sinking feeling that you are about to pull out one of those DS cards like, "I'm his sister, mum, wife,business partner, cat " etc. Anyway, because of that, this is over for me. I'd be upset if someone was observing these things about, say, my brother.

Thanks

Natasha's more man than he'll ever be.

That was obviously a joke as I was replying to someone who insinuated that I may be Jim myself. I'm not. I have defended Melody/Natasha as well in the past and nor am I either of them, btw. In fact, I would like to see Susan hired this year, but that's not really relevant.

You argue that you are more objective in your critique of the candidates. I feel very strongly that this is not the case. In fact, I find posts such as your previous one quite bizarre as they seem to suggest that your personal perception of a heavily edited series makes you some kind of authority on a person's character. A person whom you have never met and probably never will. To me, it is totally outlandish to name-call and to denigrate a person's personality when you truly have no idea what you are talking about - hence, my 'devil's advocate' response. Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion, but an informed opinion. And even then, when such opinions are presented as fact, as yours tend to be, I take issue with them.


Don't worry; I would never pull that kind of stunt.

I thought she was pretty poor on the magazine task. She got the tone wrong on her magazine, and really didn't understand what the others were trying to do. I also didn't like how she dithered about letting Leon do the pitch, then jumped into the middle of it, then did the last pitch herself. She couldn't delegate and then let go.

She had more energy, I'll grant, but the only time she actually did well was making the dog-food advert. And even that she spoiled a little by the spin she put on it in the boardroom. It's a shame she stayed in the process so long when more worthy candidates got fired before her.

I agree. The difference of her energy and stamina in the free mag task and the fast food is huge. I still stand by my comment that there's little difference between her and Jim as PMs. Both were crap.

It's obvious that Natasha's interest is in marketing, media and publishing. She did well with, like you say, the dog food advert and in spite of her mistakes, being an editor. As for Jim... well, he's proving himself a suitable candidate for the crown of Machiavelli's successor. He should think about entering politics.

Is that not just human nature though as regards the comment about Susan? It doesn't necessarily make you sly to be like that, it could be seen as just another coping mechanism. It's been pointed out many times (especially by Nick) that Susan isn't very good at having the courage of her convictions when she's fighting her corner - she has often been in the right area with some of her comments (thinking of her comment in the very first week about Melody not really being 'all that' as she claimed) but finds it intimidating when she's with others who are older and have more life experience that her. I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think it's done out of a desire to be sly.

Watching the final five programme was interesting. Four of the final five (as it was then) have not had an easy life - Susan's upbringing was disjointed to say the least in terms of moving from China to the UK via Australia; Natasha's childhood was very deprived; Zoe overcame cancer; Jim was affected by his parents divorce; only Helen seems to have had a life that could be described as 'ok' prior to appearing on The Apprentice. However, it's Jim more so than any of the others who believes his own hype to the point of thinking he's got a God-given right to do whatever it takes to get where he wants to go. There's no humility there, and that's why I find him the least likeable out of those who are left. Self-belief is one thing - and Susan has that in abundance as well - but it's not enough on it's own.

I don't think Susan is sly. That's a really strong term to use against someone who has maybe been more affected by her (still very short) life than she cares to admit, even to herself. She's learned to protect herself, and by extension protect her Mum, who is all the family she has left, and that sometimes makes her seem abrasive. But I think her heart is in the right place - I'm not sure Jim's is. He, more than any of them, seems to be the one who is going to enjoy the 'celebrity status' that will come from being a candidate in this process.

Maybe some people do think I'm being naive in taking that approach, and in particular my attitude towards Susan, but the point is that the likelihood of many of us actually knowing these people personally is slim - our opinions about their personalities and motives are simply that, not cast-iron fact.

I don't have, and have never had a favourite - I never do have one! I just watch the programme from week to week without worrying about who's eliminated, enjoy watching who grows with it, who makes mistakes, who learns from those mistakes. I won't lose any sleep over Sunday's result no matter who wins!

The humour wasn't apparent.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. I can't remember the exact figure, and can't be bothered to look it up, but something in the region of 60% of the children in the UK would fall into the "not OK" category of yours. For all you know Helen could have been bullied at school, suffered any one of many medical conditions waiting to bite teenagers without mercy or lived in a home with "parents who stay together for the kids" yet argue all day long and make the home a living hell. The things you list that go on to mean a child has led a less than OK life, God - kids can deal with that in a blink of an eye.

Kids are very robust and adapt almost instantly. Travelling around the world is certainly nothing for a child - they have their Mother, that is all a child needs. For example the floods in Cumbria - mothers were interviewed crying because their home had been 3 feet deep in water - the kids were jumping around in their wellies.

I've had a tranquil life and am Roman Catholic (so have certain beliefs that are important to ME - I don't expect anyone else to have them).......but to label someone's upbringing as less than OK because their parents divorced is crazy talk. I know many kids who have had miserable childhoods due to parents staying together (they say for the kids, but probably because neither wants to move into the biscuit box house a divorce would mean).